Sunday, September 30, 2012

I don't know if others (like me ) see or feel the same but I had no interest in the 2013 budget.

Why?

The BN government has always proven to be guardians of all Malaysian's economic welfare as far as budgets are concerned.

It is the business and financial community, local and foreign, who have the greater interest in budgets, rightly so, as budgets are indications of it's policies and directions which impact on these communities towards the economy.

Therefore, when politicians comment and depending on their credentials and motive, you take these comments with a pinch of salt. That's putting it mildly.

Constructive criticism is always welcome. But when politicians especially leaders, of the opposition Pakatan Rakyat, talk more like morons you question their intellect and credibility.

For example, Tony Pua although not a leader but with some credentials, who came out with some figures and facts, which only makes you figure.

For both these two, lets look at some available information which they conveniently do not and will not disclose.

Regarding deficits, the US National Debt and Deficit History, "The real risk from government debt is the burden of interest payments. Experts say that when interest payments reach about 12% of GDP then a government will likely default on its debt."

And where does Malaysia stand on interest payments? In "Malaysia - interest payments on external debt," interest was at O.76 %, "Interest payments on external debt (% of exports of goods, services and income) in Malaysia was 0.76 as of 2010. Its highest value over the past 36 years was 9.27 in 1986, while its lowest value was 0.76 in 2010"

As for Interest payments on external debt (% of GNI), "Interest payments on external debt (% of GNI) in Malaysia was 0.84 as of 2010. Its highest value over the past 40 years was 5.69 in 1986, while its lowest value was 0.61 in 1970".

Note: The UN Alternative Definitions/Indicators: Gross domestic product (GDP) can be used as a denominator instead of GNI. Also present value of debt can be used instead of total external debt as the numerator. Please read it's Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development.

For those PAP, DAP and Singapore fans, the Republic's deficit is at a bubbly 93.0%.

Let's look at another perspective which may explain why deficits are not a single determining factor as an area of concern, the current account balance.

The current account balance as a percent of GDP (current account to GDP) which is the current account a country has in percentage of its Gross Domestic Product, "Current Account to GDP" and what it shows for Japan and Germany.

Thus, for Hadi's information, Malaysia is doing very much better than Germany and Japan in the current account balance as percent of GDP. Hardy ha, ha to you

Secondly, as for the other moronic leaders as reported by the Malaysiakini, let me bash their comments for dessert.

Lim Guan Eng, ""Even a 14-year old can see that it is not a budget address but a campaign speech""

By Lim Guan Eng's logic Penang and Selangor, and please stop making those exasperating claims, both these states should benefit more from the budget than other states. That's what people should expect if, god please forbid, DAP takes over Putrajaya. We all know who's the boss.

For your's and Mat Sabu's nitwit analogy, nobody in his right mind would target good people for slander. Only idiots, like CAT Lim and mad Sabu, not in their right mind, do not target evil people. It goes for and with familiar territory

As for the biggest moron and leader of the pact, Anwar Ibrahim, mouthing from prepared scripts, which is as common as problems he now says exist, is a result of his actions and inactions in his tenure as Minister Education and Finance. So, he should know.

At least he admits being a great pretender.

In closing, while these morons claim that PM Datuk Seri Najib is using budget for the elections, their hollow blusters are nothing more than using the budget as propaganda for the same elections.

"The attacks against Malaysiakini signal that the government is getting desperate."

From what I see, you are the one looking like a desperado.

"For the past week, the mainstream media – TV3, Utusan Malaysia, New Straits Times and The Star – have launched an attack on Malaysiakini and civil society organisations for receiving grants from international foundations in what they claimed is a plot to destabilise the government."

Er what about the alternative media? Silly me. We are all UMNO, strange how it is always UMNO, cybertroopers.

"I understand the reason for the attacks. After all, elections are around the corner, and by all accounts, the results could go either way."

By whose, what or which account and where?

His dissection can easily dupe gullible Pakatan Rakyat supporters and his paying followers but unlike Anwar Ibrahim, who is only good at scripted events, Premesh'es prepared script is confounding, for want of an appropriate word.

So, here we go.

1. Same accusation 11 years ago

Premesh does not address, answer or deny Y L Chong's allegation that he was promised shareholding and whether Chong is a shareholder.

"Chong went to the media with the accusation that the deal was a grant". Whether the "grant" was remittance for the "contract to build a software application for the Centre for Advanced Media Prague (Camp), which is MDLF’s technology division" is left to the reader.

It would sound bizarre wouldn't it, grant for a contract?

Malaysiakini to "build a software application for the Centre for Advanced Media Prague"? and which is "MDLF’s technology division"?

You figure that one out.

2. Soros man on Malaysiakini board

"Malaysiakini received RM1.3 million for 29 percent of equity and MDLF agreed to sign an editorial non-intervention agreement."

That is a real howler.

If Premesh claims Malaysiakini is as independent as he says it is, there is no need for such an agreement. In other words there is a chance or there are occasions that MDLF have intervened.

By the way, what is the recourse to intervention by MDLF? Forfeiture of MDLF shares?

More likely a standard MDLF agreement to and for show MDLF does not have control over content in any medium it invests in.

"Soros, a Hungarian with a track record of supporting press freedom, was among the many major donors of MDLF."

Oh really? see #3. following.

"Not only does MDLF have a right to be on Malaysiakini’s board given its stake in the company, it is hardly business sense for us to pass on the opportunity to have such distinguished individuals to serve on our board."

Come on lah Premesh, with Steven son of a Gan (couldn't help it) and yourself holding a combined 60% majority stake, Harlan or MDLF could not be on board with no rights unless both of you gave them rights and makes nonsense of an "editorial non-intervention agreement".

"Does Soros care that his personal foreign policy is putting America at risk? Not likely. When asked whether he felt responsible for his role in the 1997 East Asian currency crash, he famously responded: “As a market participant, I don’t need to be concerned with the consequences of my actions.”

Premesh, give any one year, in the last 7 years, a detailed income and expense financial statements, as proof, grants meant for non-profit projects has not been utilised in your for-profit organisation.

With your meager turnover it would easily be possible to provide all documentary proof of transactions.

5. Malaysiakini has opposition figures as shareholders

"Up to this date, unfortunately, they and other shareholders have not received any dividends but we hope their investments have been worthwhile. In no way do any of the shareholders have an influence in Malaysiakini."

Says it all. A lame excuse and tired repetition of your lame "independence".

Thanks Premesh for making a complete circus of yourself but not a P T Barnum type.

Lucky you.

Then I would have said your dissection (and your Malaysiakini) would be an epitome of the famous P T Barnum phrase - "There's a sucker born every minute"

Oops I am sorry.

"There's a sucker born every minute" is most likely attributed to Joseph ("Paper Collar Joe") Bessimer.

"He (Datuk Mansor) had allegedly said DAP was sure of winning 19 (state seats) and the party now wanted more to enable that the party would rule Penang on its own."

My latest take on this - DAP is a party adept at playing the lying game, one way or another. Datuk Mansor has not denied being the person in the audio clip, therefore by being present at the press conference denying the initial CAT issue, Penang CM Lim Guan Eng is complicit to a lie. You would be more than a fool to think Guan Eng did not grill Datuk Mansor on how the CAT got out of the bag, preceeding the press conference.

For what it's worth, Harlan M Mandel, MDLF Managing Director since 2010, has no direct links with George Soros other than sitting on board of both MDLF and mkini dotcom sdn bhd.

If one were to ask how deeply George Soros is involved in MDLF, that question could be directed to Kenneth Anderson, first general counsel of George Soros' Open Society Institute and an NGO financing law expert.

Kenneth Anderson was very active in MDLF but his last blog posting on George Soros in 2007 is not very complimentary.

Steven Gan in Malaysiakini has come out with post-emptive strikes on Tun Mahathir to defend George Soros. Now why is that?

Which brings us here, the main subject of this post.

Lying SUARAM Bitch

The difference between here and there, is, over there they will accept anything even lies.

SUARAM frontwoman, Cynthia Gabriel, had lied through her bloody teeth, reported by their own pro-opposition news portal friends, that required a "clarification" which confirms she's a liar.

I was there at the Scorpene forum in Penang and was bored to death with her lies.

SUARAM is being investigated and that is a fact. For better or for worse.

Isn't it an irony that SUARAM is claiming harassment for an extensive investigation arising out of a report made by a local NGO.

SUARAM did the same to DCNS. Would they accept anything less, of the French investigation?

Usual suspects among a group of a hundred then came out in a candlelight vigil held to show solidarity for SUARAM's claims of harassment to their cause.

We over here can spot them over there.

In the Malaysiakini report of the vigil, the liar did not miss the opportunity to give an update to the usual suspects among the 100 participants with more lies. Quote,

The French judiciary is still working on the process of calling witnesses for testimonies and investigations and we expect that the witnesses will be called in very, very soon.

When asked whether Najib, as the then defence minister, would be subpoenaed, she said Najib enjoys some immunity as a head of (government) because the French are not keen to strain diplomatic ties unless there are strong suspicions against him.

However, she added that Najib will be moved up the list of witnesses “very quickly” if he is no longer the prime minister after the next general election.

I know the famous question in Malaysia is when will Najib be subpoenaed, but that will take it's course.”

Very, very soon indeed.

Surely if the witness for testimony in the SUARAM "clarification" made three months ago had received a subpoena, which at the time was "underway and may take some days", you can bet your bottom dollar Cynthia would have crowed about it.

Only kindergarten kids and gullible Pakatan Rakyat supporters will be taken in by "Najib enjoys some unity because French are not keen to strain diplomatic ties" with a leading or rather misleading "unless there are strong suspicions against him".

Firstly, the French government does not decide. It is the French court that decides.

The French ambassador to Malaysia sould be given a copy of this Malaysiakini report and ask for a retraction especially from SUARAM and inform the French court conducting the investigations that SUARAM doubts it's credibility and impartiality.

Secondly, lying Cynthia is not sure when she says "some immunity". Either there is immunity or there is no immunity, period.

One of the points raised by the Democratic Republic of Congo in their application to the ICJ was a "principle that a State may not exercise its authority on the territory of another State", the "principle of sovereign equality among all Members of the United Nations, as laid down in Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Charter of the United Nations".

It follows then, all the other Cynthia Gabriel statements regarding Datuk Seri Najib are therefore nothing more than damn lies.

Understand or not, go ask the SUARAM frontwoman whether PM Datuk Seri Najib needs to respond to any subpoena by the French courts.

The PKR Connection

The vigil’s organiser, Ng Yap Hwa, is a clear accomplice in the SUARAM cause. In the Malaysiakini report he says,

“We want to tell the government even if they can take out Suaram today, more civil society groups will rise up to continue the pursuit for the truth in the Scorpene scandal and justice for Altantuya Shaariibuu (the alleged translator for the Scorpene deal who was murdered),” said Ng when addressing the crowd

Coming back to Ng Yap Hwa's statement with his "justice for Altantuya" (and coincidently Malaysiakini's other shareholders have been identified to be PKR ladened), was the vigil organised in support against the "harassment" of that PKR nest, SUARAM, or another guise to support SUARAM's perverted cause?

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

The Star reports the businessman connected to the jet, that Anwar Ibrahim borrowed and which ain't theirs, as Datuk Mohd Taufik Omar.

When pressed to reveal if he was the real owner, Mohd Taufik said: “Am I that rich? I am just trying to cari makan (earn a living).”

Malaysiakini has Anwar saying the owner is someone he has known “for some time” and the jet was "used for travel from Kuala Lumpur to Labuan, Kota Kinabalu, Kuching and back to Kuala Lumpur…If possible, I would like to borrow it again"

So, it is not certain if that "someone", Anwar is referring to, is Datuk Mohd Taufik.

He said that while the portal operators claim to promote transparency, accountability and media independence, they neither announced the value of shares nor declared dividends.

Chong questioned if Malaysiakini revealed its annual financial statements to its staff.

“When I was serving as news editor, I was verbally told during top management meetings that I am also a shareholder"

Response from Malaysiakini CEO Premesh Chan­dran,

"Premesh said Mkini Dotcom Sdn Bhd owned Malaysiakini and the company files its annual returns yearly with CCM (Companies Commission of Mala­ysia).

“This includes all details of shareholders. The par value of the shares is RM1,’’ he said, adding that all staff who owned shares had been issued share certificates.

However, he said, they had not issued any dividends to shareholders."

Is veteran journalist, Y L Chong a shareholder of Malaysiakini? Premesh has stated that all staff who owned shares had been issued share certificates. But, if Chong had received the share certificate he would not have made the remark. Premesh did not, however, refute Chong's claim that he was informed by the top management that he was a shareholder. A case of lost in intranslation or post perhaps.

Y L Chong had challenged Malaysiakini to reveal it's annual financial report. Even though it is unclear whether Chong is a shareholder of Malaysiakini or not, we can arrive at some assumptions. If Chong is not a shareholder, Malaysiakini is not obliged to furnish Chong with the financial reports. If Chong is a Malaysiakini shareholder, Premesh has not refuted Chong's claim, and did not receive any annual reports, Malaysiakini may be guilty of two offences. See Section 143 and Section 170 of the Companies Act.

Notwithstanding the above, Premesh did not respond to Chong's challenge to reveal it's annual financial reports.

It is not unusual for private limited companies in Malaysia not to declare dividends when the directors are substantial owners of shares in the company. These directors are able to receive large remuneration, salaries and other benefits, legally within the confines of what is permitted by law, more than what a cash dividend may provide.

However, when a business is incorporated under a company limited by liability, shareholders become partners of the company by their investment and expect a return of their investment, usually by way of cash dividends. Media Development Loan Fund (MDLF) being a substantial shareholder with a 29.1% stake is not getting any returns on it's investments. So, holding on to the stake can mean that MDLF is confident of future returns or receiving benefits as above. That is, if MDLF is represented in mkini dotcom sdn bhd board of directors.

Also, dividends are declared when companies profit and subject to it's cash reserves.

Malaysiakini is a web portal owned and administered by mkini dotcom sdn bhd, a business entity.

It is definitely NOT an NGO.

Premesh said that Malaysiakini is happy to work with international foundations on interesting projects to promote press freedom. Premesh said this in an admission of grants received which created some controversy. Grants, for various projects promoting press freedom and NOT funds to finance the company, mkini dotcom sdn bhd.

To clear all doubts as to it's tranparency, credibility, impartiality and of hidden agendas, Premesh should rise to Chong's challenge to furnish a detailed financial account of the company.

Failing to do so will only serve to confirm various allegations levelled at Malaysiakini, like those of Y L Chong, for what it's worth.

Sunday, September 23, 2012

Kee Thuan Chye's "Should Pakatan Reveal It's Shadow Cabinet?" is nothing more than an apologetic excuse for the Pakatan Rakyat's refusal, inability is the more apt word, to provide a shadow cabinet, rather than well grounded justification.

His opening paragraph is a dead giveaway of abject partisanship, and for all that he posits, thereafter can be no objectivity.

Firstly, saying being surprised "that even intelligent people are questioning whether Pakatan Rakyat is ready to govern at federal level" is both insulting and disingenuous. What he is subtly saying is intelligent people would not raise such a question or only idiots will.

Secondly, he admits only reading from an online news website meaning he was not there. How can he then justify that the "full implications may not have been comprehensively conveyed" and "they seem skeptical"?

In court appeals, it is common for the higher court to support the lower court judges decision on the credibility or honesty of witness/es by their demeanour and expressions and rarely disturbs that decision on account of the judge being physically present.

Since Mr Kee was not there he is in no position to surmise as such or even suggest such at the very least.

He then goes on a public relation exercise to explain why "the question of whether Pakatan is ready to be the federal government is an unfair one."

A simple rebuttal for all that Mr Kee has to say comes from an ex-DAP and a very high ranking member of the DAP at that, DAP vice-president Tunku Abdul Aziz Tunku Ibrahim.

Tengku Abdul Aziz said, "(Penang) progressed in the last four years, it was developed because it had a history of more than 200 years and not because of Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng"

Tengku Abdul Aziz was being kind, to the opposition and his ex-party especially.

What every political commenter cannot deny, in the history of Malaya and Malaysia, the British left us with an efficient system of administration.

When Malaya (and Malaysia) gained independence, for Prime Ministers and Chief Ministers, it would not have had so much of a problem administering the country and state.

What Tengku Abdul Aziz could have said is Penang had progressed by the efforts of the previous BN administrations.

The same rationale can be applied to Selangor and or every other state any party takes over in Malaysia.

It is common sense that any governing administration could do better or worse than the previous one.

Mr Kee for whatever reason singles out Andrew Khoo (remember Mr Kee was not there) and I will address the following quotes,

He also says, “Although (Pakatan) have a common policy in (their) Buku Jingga… (the) inability or reluctance of Pakatan to form a shadow Cabinet … has meant they are unable to articulate what their policy is going to be.”

I can’t agree with that. The fact that there is already a policy is a plus point; the articulation will come if and when Pakatan takes office. I don’t think Pakatan needs to name its ministers first in order to articulate this policy. When Najib named his Cabinet, we didn’t know what his policies would be. As time went on, he came up with 1Malaysia and the transformation programmes. Later on, he opted for populist policies aimed mainly at winning the general election. Where do policy and personnel figure in this?

Mr Kee is comparing apples with oranges.

What Barisan Nasional has and Pakatan Rakyat does not - convention.

Since independence Prime Ministers of Malaysia has always been from UMNO. Whether one agrees or disagrees, by a social contract between the 3 major races, the interests of Malays would always be a priority in any policy there onwards. The 2 other major races, represented by the MCA and MIC, by all their members in the cabinet and by convention of TRUE consensus in the interests of other races, will support any policy initiated by the Prime Minister.

But Pakatan Rakyat is a heterogeneous, politically diverse and loose coalition held together, only by some book or frequently quarreled "common" policy, arrived out of the fortuitous event of 2008, for political expedience.

By convention, a deputy prime minister always succeed the prime minister. By convention, the deputy president of UMNO will always be the next prime minister should the incumbent prime minister leaves office. By convention, all the other component members of the BN accepts this progression.

Malaysian's have always accepted this convention.

That is one of the major reasons asking for a shadow cabinet. A pertinent post, that of deputy prime minister.

Pakatan Rakyat may have a "book" and much quarreled "common" policy but they do not have convention.

Who is actually the leader of Islamist PAS? Hadi or Nik Aziz? Anwar Ibrahim is not an elected leader of his party. Well and good Lim Guan Eng is secretary general of the Chinese DAP, being appointed by it's CEC. But who is actually it's leader? Guan Eng or chairman Karpal Singh? Or is it Lim Kit Siang? What is Lim Guan Eng without Lim Kit Siang?

Taking the above into genuine consideration, can Mr Kee suggest any single nominee for this important post of deputy prime minister, even if convention is set aside and his argument regarding policies is accepted?

If for some reason prime minister Anwar Ibrahim, as everyone is expected to accept if the Pakatan Rakyat should chance upon Putrajaya, leaves office, can Mr Kee in all honesty say that same someone will be accepted by the PR coalition and more importantly, the nation?

And, and, knowing full well a new prime minister is not only likely to change policies, he will also have the prerogative and most often than not, shuffle the cabinet.

Take it from there.

No need for Mr Kee to speculate that the main stream medium or even the alternative will react, holler, hound, condemn, protest etc etc the inappropriateness of Pakatan Rakyat cabinet posts, he tries hard to articulate.

On one hand, opposition apologists say that the electorate and society as a whole are now more mature, more discerning and able to make decisions. On the other, apologists like Mr Kee says main stream media can influence the very same electorate and society.

Opposition supporters brag about the alternative media being instrumental in their success, so why refuse naming a shadow cabinet when the same alternative media would be able to support and justify the cabinet?

By main stream media, Mr Kee refers to the government leaning, or owned to make him happy, English media or hard hitting Malay media.

Can Mr Kee say it includes the Chinese main stream print media, by which the Chinese community is a must have and informed, in his argument?

Indeed, these apologists carefully chose words and statements they need to make, depending on the platform and audience they address, lest they be branded racists.

Malaysiakini’s ownership is held by Steven Gan and Premesh Chandran, each of whom owns 30.1 percent of the company’s equity; and by the Media Development Loan Found (MDLF), an international NGO in charge of supporting media venture projects, which holds 29.1 percent.

It was George Soros who "set up a special operation, the Media Development Loan Fund, to satisfy the ever recurring demand for supporting mass media."

Where "transparency" is opaqued by an omission of a link to George Soros may be moot, juxtapose both the Star reports, it is clear that to Malaysiakini mere mention or any link to George Soros is taboo.

Thursday, September 20, 2012

Everyone who has an interest in politics has been speculating when the elections will be held.

Elections will be held. Sooner or later.

As the date draws nearer as the days go by, you will hear more rhetoric from the Pakatan Rakyat by way of promises, declarations (lately in Sarawak witnessed by a 700 hundred strong crowd) and it's readiness, the 2008 elections results Tony Pua "noted PR had not expected but we succeeded" he said and “Now, we are really ready".

It shows the political novice in Tony Pua for an admission and failed spin. However, Tony Pua is familiar with unexpected success and more so with expected failure, like his dotcom business.

Not like his master, Lim Guan Eng, who has grown arrogantly and cockily into his position as Penang CM, prepared to bring the Election Commission to court and deliver his "promise" for local elections.

The same Election Commission and an electoral roll his new "analyst" recruit, Ong Kian Ming, submits is fraught with millions of doubtful voters.

Lim Guan Eng can count on "analyst" Ong, best friend of failed businessman Tony Pua, to advise the Penang CM which Penangites are legitimate and eligible to vote in the local elections.

Yes indeed, Tony Pua, Lim Guan Eng, and all of Pakatan Rakyat are in full throttle.

Except for a minor detail apparently amissed, Ambiga and BERSIH. Well, they are both one and the same.

Pakatan Rakyat all gung-ho for the next general elections with nary a word of free and fair elections in the words of Ambiga and BERSIH.

It makes you wonder how Pakatan Rakyat can deliver all it's promises, declarations and get ready for an election that is neither free and fair, as Ambiga or BERSIH swears by, and Pakatan Rakyat is doomed to lose.

If Pakatan Rakyat were honest and credible, if Ambiga and BERSIH are to be believed, Pakatan Rakyat should boycott the coming general elections.

No can do, can they?

Partake in the next general elections Pakatan Rakayat will, sooner or later.

So, Ambiga and BERSIH, for all your hardwork and instigations, after you have taken thousands for a ride, after Anwar Ibrahim and Co had taken YOU for the same ride, thanks for the memories.

Monday, September 17, 2012

Reported in The Sun, the three component parties of Pakatan Rakyat (PR) will ink a Kuching Declaration at a Malaysia Day gathering to be held here on Sept 16. "The declaration will be historical and will give meaning to Malaysia Day that would likely take the entire country by surprise".

Yes, I was surprised. Reading the declaration, it was nowhere near what I had been provided from Pakatan Rakyat sources.

The declaration in it's original form is as follows:

On this day 16 September 2012, the symbolic 4th Anniversary of the Pakatan Rakyat government that was promised by our future prime minister, Anwar Ibrahim, we the undersigned Pakatan Rakyat leaders, if Pakatan Rakyat takes over the Federal Government in the next general elections, hereby declare:

Sarawak will house the new federal capital of Malaysia.

As 31st August important and significant only in Semenanjung, 31st August will no longer be a National Day public holiday in Sarawak.

As for Sabah, National Day holiday on 31st August will remain as a public holiday until further notice because support is not encouraging and we have not got a clue.

All future official National Day celebrations will be celebrated in Sarawak in the same and successful manner as the Selangor state National Day celebrations.

Not only will Pakatan Rakyat increase Sarawak oil royalty, Sarawakians will be given free petrol and income tax for all Sarawakians will be abolished.

In the Sarawak 2011 elections, by PKR improved performance with worthy mention of PAS as our partner for those who still don't know, and in particular gratitude and recognition of the Chinese who had overwhelmingly voted the DAP, Pakatan Rakyat will create 3 Deputy Prime Ministers posts, two for Semenanjung and one post specially allocated to Sarawak. Sarawak will not only have a first Deputy Prime minister but a first Chinese Sarawak Deputy Minister to represent East Malaysia in the Federal government.

This the Pakatan Rakyat declare wholeheartedly but subject always to decision by consensus which is our consistent policy and signed with indelible ink of the coming general elections.

Signed

***Terms and Conditions apply ***Changes may be made without notice

What made Pakatan revise the declaration is anyone's guesss.

That said, the declaration was much anticipated and enthusiastically received by a large audience.

The large gathering had also been due to the presence of Pakatan Rakyat big guns who must have also have been surprised and pleased by the huge response.

Friday, September 14, 2012

I had have this link of CIA declassified document for some time and is now appropriate to publish to debunk Kua's assertion that Tun Razak had been behind a "coup d’état" to oust the Tunku.

The document if it were to be accepted clearly states - This would be followed by the ouster of Rahman along with the entire Malay "old order" presumably including Deputy Prime Minister Razak, the moderate head of the emergency government.

Note that Tun Razak is not an extremists but a "moderate head" hence Tun Razak was not part of a "coup d’état".

If you did not accept that, believing Hua's version instead, then all else in the document cannot be accepted as totally accurate information.

Therefore any document cannot conclusively be accepted in whole, and in part, must be corroborated by events proceeding the documentary as it stood, to substantiate an argument.

Reading further, Tun Razak and the NOC not only prevented "further violence" but peace and order had been restored, pravailing till this day.

What it means is, just because a document is declassified, giving a perception of hidden truth, it is not the case.

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

What’s the difference between BN and George Soros? asks Kua Kia Siong and by the way it's Soong

Okay, this Kua Kia Soong is really getting desperate and jumpy.

Kua had better seek his lawyers, not necessarily the Scorpene lawyers, for advise. They would tell Kua not to raise a subject that would expose an obvious weakness and open the door he hitherto been restricted from attacks.

When did the present government have any derision towards George Soros for being a Jew, which Kua alone establishes, to justify his latest histrionics in polishing Soros' apples?

I am being kind, others will say carrying the philantropist's (I did say I am being kind) testicles.

This is mischievous, making an anti-semitic charge and playing the racist Jew card but then again Kua is not averse to semantically disguised racist overtones.

Anyway, this is for starters and why George Soros is reviled around the world.

With the 2012 Presidential election less than seven months away, a leftist liberal election fraud strategy has been uncovered by Accuracy in Media (AIM). The report is extensive and alludes to a multi-faceted process to commit massive election fraud in this year’s election to assure President Obama is reelected to a second term. It points out that ACORN, who was a point of investigations in 2009 for election fraud, appears to once again be involved this year but under a different name.

The report stated that it has overt and covert, illegal and legal elements in order to facilitate illegal activities. Many of these organizations and individuals are directly and indirectly involved with George Soros foundations.

The common opinion on both sides of the political fence is Pakatan Rakyat will retain Penang in the coming state elections.

Is this an unshakeable opinion?

This was what Penang PKR and deputy chief minister, Datuk Mansor Othman, is recently reported to have said when he labelled Guan Eng ‘arrogant’,

On whether the DAP has requested any seats from PKR, Mansor is quoted as saying he would not budge on that. He said PKR’s Chinese candidates are seen as a “threat” to the DAP.

“He (Guan Eng) is very arrogant, I tell you… cocky and arrogant. It is not easy. Now more arrogant,” Mansor says about the DAP secretary-general.

“They (the DAP) are sure of winning 19 (seats) and they want more. Because with two more (seats) they can form their own government and they can take from us (PKR reps) to be on their side and (then) abandon us (PKR),” the minutes quote him as saying.

What did Datuk Mansor mean by PKR’s Chinese candidates are seen as a “threat” to the DAP?

There is no logical reason. After all, PKR and DAP are ruling coalition partners in Penang.

And what did he mean by "It is not easy" and followed by “They (the DAP) are sure of winning 19 (seats) and they want more. Because with two more (seats) they can form their own government.."?

In the context of cocky and arrogance, it could mean that Lim Guan Eng is so arrogant, he is cocksure of retaining all the 19 seats the DAP now holds, not thinking that DAP could lose some seats. With two more seats, DAP would have 21 seats and the majority all on it's own.

Presently, the Penang state assembly has 40 seats with the DAP holding 19, PKR 9 and UMNO 11 respectively. PAS has only a single seat in Permatang Pasir.

All it takes is 10 seats and BN will be returned to administer the state. All 11 seats in the state assembly had been won by UMNO .

That is a total of a 12 seats, two more than needed, to unseat the Pakatan Rakyat.

This is based on the 2004 elections, when these seats were won by BN convincingly, and 2008 results when it lost fewer than 2000 votes.

DAP is definitely not in a happy state of affairs in Penang as the Datuk Mansor disclosures show and also in Selangor.

The question would be, where does anti-hopping factor into all of this?

It becomes a factor if BN falls a few seats short of the 10 needed.

That is what Datuk Mansor meant by "threat" of the Chinese PKR candidates, switching sides. That is why Lim Guan Eng wants 2 more seats from the PKR. Datuk Mansor's remarks could also mean Lim Guan Eng has no confidence of PKR retaining their seats and the DAP has a better chance. Then there would be no worries of any crossing over as the issue would not arise.

The next question would be, if anti-hopping is unconstitutional and the federal government has no plans to outlaw it, why is Lim Guan Eng taking all the trouble?

It only confirms his true intentions, knowing it is not enforceable, he and the DAP are giving the impression that those crossing over to the BN would then be dishonourable people who have betrayed the electorate.

Readers can say all of the above is moot.

But consider this, by objecting to any party hopping laws the BN government is also vulnerable and has got more to lose by defections of it's state assemblymen and especially members of parliament which would result in a change of federal government.

This is an irrefutable fact borne out at Pakatan Rakyat’s Malaysia Day celebration on 15 September 2008 with Anwar insisting he had enough Barisan MPs to form government, had sought a meeting with former PM Badawi to discuss a smooth transition of power with a letter signed by all Pakatan Rakyat leaders for the former premier to respond.

Lim Kit Siang and son, Lim Guan Eng, did not think party hopping was unethical or morally wrong at the time.

In fact, elder Lim reportedly went on to say it “did not matter whether the change is 916 (Sept 16), 1016 (Oct 16), 1116 (Nov 16) or 1216 (Dec 16)” and “What is important is for all of us to be united to make the change happen”.

So why would the BN government NOT support any party hopping laws when it has more to lose being the ruling party and why is Lim Guan Eng, DAP and Co insisting on such laws?

However, parliamentary party leaders may value anti-defection laws for a darker purpose—to bolster control of their members. Backers of anti-defection laws rarely point out this consequence.

Established democracies value the freedom of individual parliamentary members to switch parties. They regard switching parties as compatible with democratic values and see anti-defection laws as infringements on political freedoms.

Outlawing party defections in constitutions invites observers to speculate about the framers’ intentions. Was it to produce competitive party systems or to consolidate power within existing parties? It is an important question for nations considering anti-defection laws.

Indeed, Lim Guan Eng's motives is a dark purpose — to bolster control of the DAP members and consolidate power within the party.

Barisan Nasional parties do not worry about it's members switching sides and definitely do not impose undemocratic means to control it's members that will determine a government, state or federal.

This is the problem with opposition supporters. Not only are they ignorant of issues affecting the country, they are led by the nose and blindly follow actions that are against enacted laws.

With safety in numbers, thousands who "only followed suit when they saw others doing the same" ignorant of the law or not, got off scott free in BERSIH 3.0 when Dataran Merdeka barriers were breached, in defiance of the law.

Could you imagine what would happen if it were the Agong's picture that was stepped upon?

Oh no, Malaysians are now more matured and accept freedom of expression.

That's why we have laws like the Sedition Act.

Ignorance of the law is no defence in any legal proceeding when one is charged.

As she has admitted and if she were to be charged she would be found guilty. Pay the price, case closed.

This is not about politics.

Yes, justice must be tempered with mercy but in the context of our social norms, and to maintain peace and order, a stiff and deterrent sentence must be imposed as a lesson to others.

4. (1) Any person who (a) does or attempts to do, or makes any preparation to do, or conspires with any person to do, any act which has or which would, if done, have a seditious tendency..

shall be guilty of an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable for a first offence to a fine not exceeding five thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both..

Update 10.25pm

No worries Ong Sing Yee, your political comrade Gobind Singh says you have not done anything seditious. So. you can go and step on our PM's picture. In public so much the better. In private nobody will know.

As for the student who was expelled, hard luck to you.

YB Gobind, What about Seditious tendency 3 (e) to promote feelings of ill will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia?

class [klas, klahs] noun

1.a number of persons or things regarded as forming a group by reason of common attributes, characteristics

class [klɑːs] noun

1. a collection or division of people or things sharing a common characteristic, attribute, quality, or property
2. (Sociology) a group of persons sharing a similar social position and certain economic, political, and cultural characteristics

I am one in this class who has ill feeling and beginning to feel hostile against your opposition antics.

My comment: Yes, provided the student is truly remorseful. Do not deprive him his education and future. If rapists can be reprieved, why not. Same goes for Ms Ong but not another person as mentioned in Malaysiakini. One must be truly remorseful.

Update 7 September 12.10pm - More ignorant Ong and stupid lawyer.

Ong, who was released on police bail from the Dang Wangi district police station in Kuala Lumpur at 2am today, said her apology was meant for the public.

Asked to clarify, her lawyer said that the apology would also be for the prime minister as he is also a member of the public.

Mr Jacob Sinnathamby and Malaysian Insider need to have their heads straightened out. This Edge article provides with emphasis, "Today, most mission schools, which became partially aided schools in the 1970s (the schools agreed to Education Ministry supplying and paying teachers and covering basic operational costs while the schools retained the ownership of the land and buildings) are the legacy of the Catholics and methodists."

And while Mr Jacob has nothing but praise only for the Penang state government, Stop The Lies said of the Penang CM,

Lim Guan Eng, go and read up history lah. Don’t be lazy. Be honest to yourself. Tell us, who started money politics, who threw cash to the Sabah Umno politicians to overthrow Ghafar Baba? Who wanted to kill off Chinese education? Who took down the crosses in mission schools? Who pushed for Islamization in this country with his Abim and dakwah approaches?

On Saturday in a conversation at my brother's Raya open house, I commented that the main stream broadcast media should give Anwar more exposure albeit impromptu, no fixed scripts. The more Anwar speaks the more one will spot his contradictions and conflicting statements.

Coincidentally, blogger OutSyed The Box said it perfectly today, Anwar 'Hounded Out Again"

The man is lame in the brain. Otak tak ada. He cannot string a coherent sentence by himself unless someone else wrote it first or wrote it for him. But he can talk non stop. People can see through him. Just let him talk. Lagi banyak dia cakap, lagi nampak dia punya bodoh.

Too bad with dwindling audience, not many will find more of Anwar's deficiencies any time soon.

MyKad

Love my country with its pimples, warts and all - a paradise on earth. Born in Kuala Lumpur, Selangor. Blog, Title and Description was created a flip-flop moment in time and what others following will aspire the country to be, that which was achieved by the Special One.

DISCLAIMER

All content provided on this blog is for informational purposes only. The owner of this blog does not share the view of any comments unless otherwise stated. The owner is not responsible and makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any comments published or information found by following any link on this site. The owner will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information. The owner will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or use of this information. Reader discretion is always advised.